Or it could be Trump’s new Limo for all that I know! Grumpy
Estimated reading time: 12 minutes
My wife’s grandfather was one of my favorite people. A legit war hero, in the 1930’s Eddie Robinson was a self-described hobo. He rode the rails in the aftermath of the Great Depression looking for work. When he enlisted in the US Army in 1940 it was not for any great patriotic ideal, though he was most definitely a patriot. Eddie Robinson first donned a uniform because it was a reliable source of food.
We modern-day Americans really cannot comprehend what that must have been like. When I was in medical training I worked in the health department in Jackson, Mississippi. My patients were some of the poorest Americans in the country. They were all fat and carried cell phones. We have so much for which to be thankful.
Table of contents
Back in the 1930’s hunger was a real thing. In a land without jobs, those who could find work did fairly well. Those who could not simply withered. Such a ghastly crucible ultimately produced the finest Americans our great nation has ever seen.
The Man: Charles Bronson
Charles Dennis Buchinsky was born in Ehrenfeld, Pennsylvania, in 1921. He was the eleventh of fifteen children born to Walter and Mary Buchinsky. Mary and Walter were first-generation immigrants from Lithuania. Young Charles did not speak English around his home as a child.
Charles Buchinsky spent his youth working underground in the Pennsylvania coal mines.The Buchinsky men were coal miners and cut from hearty stock. Charles later said that he never knew his father terribly well. The man was forever working in the Pennsylvania coal mines trying to scrape out a living for his extensive family. He said whenever his mother announced that his father was home from the mines all of the children would run and hide.
In 1933, Charles’ father died. Though I could not find a cause of death, some toxic combination of black lung and exhaustion are the most likely culprits. At this time, America was teetering on the brink of collapse. With starvation as the alternative, the twelve-year-old Charles Buchinsky duly reported to the mine office and inquired about employment.
Bronson Came From Different Times
There were not quite so many laws and lawyers back then, and anyone old enough to carry a shovel was a potential miner. The wiry little kid and his brother began working in the office but soon headed underground with the rest of the diggers. He was paid $1 for every ton of coal he cut from the mountain.
I have never been in a coal mine myself, but apparently that’s a lot of coal. Buchinsky had to work double shifts to bring in $1 per week. Because of their small size, Buchinsky and his brother specialized in removing the “stumps” between the mines. As an adult he reported that cave-ins were common occurrences.
Even with all the kids who were able out working, there still was not enough money to feed the entire family. Mary lacked the cash for milk for Charles’ baby sister and had to feed her warm tea instead. The kids frequently missed meals, and Charles occasionally wore his sister’s dress to school because they could not spare the money for clothing. Despite all the many manifest hardships, Charles Buchinsky still graduated from high school. He was the first member of his extended family to do so.
The Coal Miner Goes to War
By 1943, the entire world was at war. Nation rose against nation, and the planet was mobilized for combat in a way not seen before or since. With young Americans flocking to serve their country, Charles Buchinsky fell in with the crowd. He later reported that this was the first time in his life he regularly ate three meals a day.
Despite being a native-born American, Charles’ English was not great. When he entered the service, the young man was fluent in Russian, Lithuanian, and Greek. His pronounced accent caused his fellow servicemen to falsely assume he was a foreigner.
Buchinsky enlisted in the US Army Air Corps and was selected to crew the most advanced weapon system of the war. After a stint with the 760th Flexible Gunnery Training Squadron, he was assigned to the 61st Bombardment Squadron as part of the 39th Bombardment Group deployed to the newly-liberated island of Guam. By early 1945, Charles Buchinsky was a gunner in a massive B-29 Superfortress raining pain down on the Japanese home islands.
The Machine
The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was the B-2 stealth bomber of its day. The developmental project that led to the plane’s deployment was the single most expensive military undertaking of the war, even beating out the Manhattan Project that brought us the atomic bomb. The overall cost was $3 billion back in the 1940’s. Each gleaming new copy to roll off the Boeing assembly lines set Uncle Sam back more than $900,000. That would be about $15 million today. We ultimately produced 3,970 of the advanced airplanes.
Many of the capabilities we take for granted in modern aviation were pioneered in the sleek silver B-29. For starters, the aircraft was pressurized. For a machine with a service ceiling of 31,850 feet, this was a really big deal.
Flyer Strengths
The primary strengths of the Superfort were its speed and ceiling. The airplane flew so high that Japanese interceptors had great difficulty even reaching them. However, five miles above the earth is a terribly unforgiving place to fight.
In the unpressurized B-17 and B-24 bombers, aircrews had to bundle up against the extreme cold and wear individual supplemental oxygen to keep from suffocating. The waist gunners on some models were actually exposed to the frigid slipstream. This necessary bulky gear made performing their flight duties difficult and dangerous. By contrast, the cabin of the B-29 could be maintained comfortably enough for the crew to operate in shirtsleeves.
Advanced Technology for the Day
One of the more advanced aspects of the B-29’s design was its array of remote-controlled defensive turrets. Early models carried four AN/M2 .50-caliber machineguns in an unmanned forward dorsal turret along with a further two guns apiece in three other automated weapon stations. The tail gunner controlled a pair of .50-caliber AN/M2’s along with a 20mm cannon. This gave a total of twelve heavy machineguns. The cannon was deleted on some later models. 
These guns were slaved to a series of remote sights all governed by an early analog fire control computer. Gunners operating out of blisters on the sides of the plane controlled the massed fire from the remotely-operated turret systems. In practice, this complex system honestly didn’t work terribly well, but it paved the way for truly great things to come.
The B-29 had a maximum combat overload takeoff weight of 135,000 pounds and could carry up to 22,000 pounds’ worth of bombs at low altitudes over short distances. Hundreds of the big machines deployed on massed raids burned the heart out of the Japanese homeland. Low-altitude nighttime firebombing missions obliterated entire cities at a stroke.
Bronson Goes Combat and Beyond
Charles Buchinsky flew 25 missions as a nose gunner on a B-29 over Japan. He was eventually injured in the arms by flak and earned the Purple Heart. He left the service in 1946 as a Sergeant.
Now finally well-fed and a combat veteran, the 5’11” Charles Buchinsky found a job as a set dresser with a theater company in Philadelphia. This led to a few minor stage roles. For a time he actually shared an apartment with Jack Klugman, himself an aspiring actor at the time.
Once his career took off, Buchinsky’s chiseled looks and weird accent made him the Arnold Schwarzenegger of his day. In 1954, Buchinsky changed his name to Charles Bronson on the advice of his agent. The House Un-American Activities Committee hearings were in full swing, and they were both concerned that such a characteristically Eastern European name might taint his career.
Success On and Off Screen
After the expected bevy of small roles on both TV and the big screen, in 1958 Bronson landed the lead in Roger Corman’s biopic Machine-Gun Kelly. In 1960, he earned a supporting role in The Magnificent Seven. This epic Western was an inexplicable flop in the US but set box office records in Europe. It has gone on to be recognized as a classic of the genre. The Magnificent Seven laid a foundation for Bronson to land a major part in the 1963 John Sturges’ epic The Great Escape. Playing alongside such greats as Steve McQueen, James Garner, and Richard Attenborough, the starving tough kid from the Pennsylvania coal mines showed the world he had what it took to run with the big dogs.
Denouement
Charles Bronson’s career exploded after that. His starring contribution to The Dirty Dozen helped make it an all-time classic war film. For a time, Bronson, who did not reliably eat three meals a day until he entered the service, was the highest-paid actor in Hollywood. He commanded more than a million dollars per movie for genre-spawning classics like Death Wish.
Charles Bronson Had a Chaotic Career
Death Wish was Bronson’s career-defining project, and he didn’t make the movie until he was 52. Death Wish ultimately spawned three sequels as well as a decent Bruce Willis remake along with countless knockoff variations on the theme. Roles that he narrowly missed included the lead in The Shootist, Snake Plissken in Escape From New York, and the iconic Superman that ultimately went to Christopher Reeve. Late in his career, Bronson turned down the role of Curly Washburn in City Slickers that ultimately went to Jack Palance.
Like most rich, famous people, Bronson’s personal life was chaos. He was married three times, fathered four children, and eventually succumbed to metastatic lung cancer at age 81 in 2003. Tough, exotic, popular, and hard, Charles Bronson rose from the most humble of beginnings to become the archetypal Hollywood manly man.
Categories
CZ 527 at 230 yards
Categories
Every Gun Owner is Gonna Feel THIS
Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there!
Editor’s Note: This article is not intended as legal advice. Please familiarize yourself with your state and local laws, and contact a qualified attorney with any questions you might have.
There is the old saying that a man’s home is his castle — albeit smaller and certainly with better creature comforts like indoor plumbing, central heat, and likely air conditioning. Castles were defended by a lord’s personal troops, where an individual must defend the home and protect his or her family.
The “Castle Doctrine” governs when a person may lawfully use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves within their home or other protected spaces.
The Castle Doctrine originated in early 17th-century English common law, establishing that an individual has no duty to retreat when attacked in their own home, treating the home as a “castle.”
This concept was famously articulated by Sir Edward Coke in 1604 as “the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress.” It legally justifies the use of reasonable, sometimes deadly, force against intruders. It might seem odd that this originated in England, even as it remains a foundation of American self-defense law.
The doctrine was adopted into American law following independence and has been deeply embedded in the American understanding of self-defense, property rights, and individual protection. In the 19th century, U.S. courts, notably in Ohio in 1876, reinforced this by holding that a “true man” is not obliged to flee an assailant, thereby expanding the idea of defending one’s home and honor.
According to criminal defense attorney Emma K. Wittmann of Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm and “Attorneys On Retainer” (AOR), the Castle Doctrine may seem straightforward in principle. Yet, its application varies dramatically across jurisdictions and often raises nuanced questions of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality.
Castle Doctrine: No Need to Flee the Home
As established, those in their home don’t need to attempt to flee or engage in a “duty to retreat,” as they might while outside the home.
“The Castle Doctrine establishes that individuals have no duty to retreat when defending themselves in their own home, based on the principle that ‘a person’s home is his castle.’ At its core, the Castle Doctrine provides that a person who is lawfully present in their dwelling has no duty to retreat before using reasonable — even deadly — force against an intruder who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter,” explained Wittmann.
“In contrast, the traditional duty to retreat requires individuals to avoid using deadly force if they can safely retreat and escape the threat. The castle doctrine serves to remove this requirement within one’s ‘castle’ or home,” Wittmann added.
Reasonable Belief in Danger
The most important thing to understand about the Castle Doctrine is that it does not grant a blanket license to use lethal force. It is also not limited just to the home, depending on the state.
The Castle Doctrine is a concept that all 50 states agree on, at least to some extent. However, there are numerous subtle differences in Castle Doctrine laws across the United States, which can dramatically affect whether an individual can be charged with a crime.
Some states have a Castle Doctrine that only covers your home, whereas other states’ Castle Doctrine protects additional places, such as one’s vehicles.
A key point is that the Castle Doctrine requires that an individual using self-defense must “reasonably believe” that an intruder poses an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony. To this end, the defender must determine that the deadly physical force was therefore necessary to prevent imminent harm or death to themselves or another person and respond proportionally.
“In any Self-Defense analysis, we are evaluating what a ‘reasonable’ person would have done if they were in your shoes,” said Wittmann.
“Reasonable belief” or “reasonable person” also refers to a hypothetical average person, or someone who uses common sense, exercises ordinary judgment, and reacts proportionally to the situation, Wittmann noted.
She said that, in practice, “reasonable” is determined by the jurors at trial, thereby highlighting the stakes.
“Picture you are at trial and the Jurors, members of your local community, are hearing about your case. They decide if they would have responded the same way you did. The Jurors decide if you acted reasonably under the circumstances,” Wittmann continued. “You still need to show that you did have a real, honest belief that the intruder posed an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. This is your subjective belief.
“But when we talk about what a reasonable person would have done in your situation, we evaluate it from an objective viewpoint. Would other members of your jury, local community, and the public have thought the same way you did about the threat posed?”
Where You Live Matters — A Lot!
When it comes to firearms and self-defense, there is no substitute for knowledge. Gun owners are expected to know and then observe the laws in their state and their local community. That includes knowing how the Castle Doctrine applies.
It is also something that should never be assumed, regardless of whether the home is in California, New York, Texas, or Montana.
“While all 50 states agree on the concept of Castle Doctrine, there are subtle differences among the states,” warned Wittmann. “For example, the rules can differ regarding when a person is allowed to use deadly force, such as whether it is necessary to wait until an intruder has entered the home, or if an attempted entry alone is sufficient to justify it. It is always important to educate yourself on your state laws, so you know how to act within the legal bounds of your state.”
For example, New York’s Castle Doctrine allows residents to use reasonable force, including deadly force, against an intruder without a duty to retreat if they are inside their home. It does not apply to the surrounding property, where a duty to retreat typically exists. As New York is not a “Stand Your Ground” state, outside the home, individuals generally have a duty to retreat if they can do so safely, including the yard, porch, or driveway.
Other states, such as Michigan, do not require residents to flee or retreat, including the use of reasonable force if an intruder is breaking into a dwelling or business, or attempting to remove someone from a house or car unlawfully. The Castle Doctrine also applies to the curtilage, which is the area around the home, including an attached garage.
Yet, the use of reasonable force is still based on the threat.
“Attached garages are generally covered by the Castle Doctrine protections, while typically detached garages or storage sheds would not qualify for the same protection, though this can vary by state,” said Wittmann. “When it comes to a property theft in garage settings, Castle Doctrine protection is generally limited to situations involving threats to personal safety rather than pure property protection.”
Protecting People Not Property
Using deadly force to stop a car theft would likely not be considered a reasonable use of force unless there was also a threat to an individual. For the same reason, deadly force is not considered reasonable if someone is causing property damage.
There are situations where it can become a bit blurrier.
“The Castle Doctrine and crime prevention statutes both involve the justified use of defensive force, but they apply in distinct legal contexts with differing scopes and thresholds,” suggested Wittmann. “The Castle Doctrine does not protect property; it protects people. Generally, individuals are not allowed to use deadly physical force to protect just personal property.”
Yet, crime prevention statutes, by contrast, do state that a person is justified in threatening or using physical or deadly force against another if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent another from committing a specific criminal offense.
It is also important to note that individuals need to understand when an intruder is no longer a threat.
“The Castle Doctrine requires the individual using self-defense to reasonably believe that the intruder poses an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony,” said Wittmann. “Imminent means ‘right now.’ The Castle Doctrine does not protect individuals pursuing or retaliating against an intruder if the immediate threat has ended.”
Someone attempting to flee, even with items stolen from the house, isn’t an imminent threat any longer.
“If the homeowner no longer has a reasonable belief that the intruder poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and the person is actively leaving or has left the premises, the homeowner is going to have a much more difficult time arguing that his use of force is justified,” Wittmann continued.
It’s Never a “Get Out of Jail Free Card”
Obviously, the Castle Doctrine should never be viewed as a “get out of jail free card,” and it doesn’t provide blanket immunity for using deadly force in the home. Regardless of the situation, homeowners who used deadly force, even when they viewed it as necessary, should expect an investigation.
The law creates a “rebuttable presumption” of fear, meaning it tilts in favor of the homeowner. Yet, prosecutors can argue that the defender was not actually in reasonable fear for their safety. Likewise, the Castle Doctrine generally does not apply if the person entering has a right to be there (e.g., a co-owner), is a law enforcement officer in performance of duties, or if the homeowner is engaged in illegal activity at the time.
“The Castle Doctrine provides powerful legal protection, but it is not absolute,” explained Wittmann. “Castle Doctrine does not provide a blanket authorization for using deadly physical force in every scenario involving a perceived risk. Remember, the Castle Doctrine is a defense and not a preclusion of prosecution. Self-defense is a justification for an act that would otherwise be a crime.”
Some states have crime prevention statutes that say a person is justified in threatening or using physical or deadly force against another if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent another from committing a specific criminal offense. That may include preventing arson of an occupied structure or burglary.
“Any time you act in self-defense in this type of scenario, you should expect and prepare to be the subject of a criminal investigation,” said Wittmann. “The result of the investigation hinges on your set of facts, any statements you choose to make to the police, and your state’s laws.”
Conclusion
Thank you to Emma K. Wittmann of Attorneys On Retainer for the insight on understanding the Castle Doctrine for the purposes of this article. The Attorneys On Retainer Program provides self-defense legal coverage, incident-related assistance, and affiliate program features. AOR operates through a direct attorney-client relationship, ensuring personalized legal representation in all 50 states. AOR is backed by The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm, the only law firm in the nation that exclusively handles self-defense cases.